Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

natesilver.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 341 posts

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#61

Post by YeezyMode »

nradov wrote: post #16
KerrAvon wrote: post #2

This is all fine, but the focus on deaths is sort of missing the larger societal problem. The COVID devastation is also about long COVID, and even people who had COVID but either recovered “fully” or never displayed symptoms. None of this is over, and we are so, so fucked. edit: Which is to say: The Great Barrington Declaration was wrong directionally as well. We really needed to optimize to eliminate COVID as much a…

That is misinformation. The risk of "long COVID" has been widely overstated. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112338 Most any serious viral infection can potentially cause post-viral syndrome, but there is nothing particularly dangerous about SARS-CoV-2. And there is no realistic possibility of eliminating that virus. There is no sterilizing vaccine. It is now endemic worldwide through humans and multiple animal…

It isn't misinformation. Here is a study that basically rebuts every implication of the study you linked: https://twitter.com/VirusesImmunity/status/17063329657922727...

Another link questioning the process behind the entire study itself: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-an-ana...

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#62

Post by staticfloat »

diogenes4 wrote: post #60
burkaman wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the word "arbitrary" is currently undergoing any change, it hasn't been used the way you use it in like 400+ years.

Wait, so what does arbitrary mean to you if not "the result of a judgement or choice"? Is it just a synonym for random to you?

Yes, that’s what it means for me. I’ve never heard someone use the word arbitrary to mean anything other than “a random choice”, or even “a poorly thought-out choice”.

My professors in grad school explicitly discouraged use of that word anywhere in technical writing, as they felt it would immediately give the reader the impression that the actions taken in the research were not thought through. Example: “This new technique enables arbitrary manipulations of data” should instead be replaced by something like “this technique enables a wide range of manipulations of data”.

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#63

Post by diogenes4 »

staticfloat wrote: post #62
diogenes4 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, so what does arbitrary mean to you if not "the result of a judgement or choice"? Is it just a synonym for random to you?

Yes, that’s what it means for me. I’ve never heard someone use the word arbitrary to mean anything other than “a random choice”, or even “a poorly thought-out choice”. My professors in grad school explicitly discouraged use of that word anywhere in technical writing, as they felt it would immediately give the reader the impression that the actions taken in the research were not thought through. Example: “This new tec…

> I’ve never heard someone use the word arbitrary to mean anything other than “a random choice”, or even “a poorly thought-out choice”.

That's shocking, I use it to mean "the result of a judgement or decision" about a dozen times a day, such as "it's not random, it's arbitrary". I had no clue people had an alternative definition for it. I'm even more surprised that otherwise ostensibly-educated people have no clue about the traditional definition.

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#65

Post by yashap »

diogenes4 wrote: post #60
burkaman wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the word "arbitrary" is currently undergoing any change, it hasn't been used the way you use it in like 400+ years.

Wait, so what does arbitrary mean to you if not "the result of a judgement or choice"? Is it just a synonym for random to you?

The first dictionary result when Googling says:

> arbitrary (adjective)

> based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

> ex: “his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"

Natural language is imprecise, so there are many definitions, but that fits with how I interpret the word. I wouldn’t think of something like “the well researched opinion of an expert”, which certainly is the result of a judgement, as being “arbitrary”.

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#66

Post by jonstewart »

gadders wrote: post #39
zdragnar wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My brother has it. Persistently elevated heart rate and breathing issues, to the point that walking up a flight of stairs would leave him winded when he was suffering the worst. I believe he's gotten a bit better since, but not fully recovered. His resting heart rate is up 20bpm, and it can take 10-15 minutes after exerting himself for it to return to that new normal. He's almost certainly at risk for a stroke due to…

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying it's a lot, lot rarer than the COVID alarmists seem to think. People also get post viral fatigue from other virii.

To be clear, you’re saying it’s a lot, lot rarer than Covid alarmists think… because you don’t personally know anyone with it?

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#67

Post by uoaei »

postmodest wrote: post #50
bugglebeetle wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yeah, we should vote for the other party to punish the--what? That's their platform? Oh. Posts like this, which blame only the Democrats by name, are practically agitprop.

The real fuckery is the system-wide insistence that there's only two sides to every debate and that the line between the two parties defines the terms of the debate.

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#68

Post by mjmsmith »

phkahler wrote: post #56

>> This wasn’t intended as any sort of super-duper hot take, and I pared the post down to avoid having too much of an attack surface. It is intended to shame Republicans. What other possible reason is there to tie death rates to political party? So yes it was a hot take. You planted a lightning rod. Making something like vaccination a political issue does everyone a disservice.

It certainly did a disservice to the people who died because their politics convinced them that the vaccine was worse than the disease.

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#69

Post by burkaman »

diogenes4 wrote: post #63
staticfloat wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that’s what it means for me. I’ve never heard someone use the word arbitrary to mean anything other than “a random choice”, or even “a poorly thought-out choice”. My professors in grad school explicitly discouraged use of that word anywhere in technical writing, as they felt it would immediately give the reader the impression that the actions taken in the research were not thought through. Example: “This new tec…

> I’ve never heard someone use the word arbitrary to mean anything other than “a random choice”, or even “a poorly thought-out choice”. That's shocking, I use it to mean "the result of a judgement or decision" about a dozen times a day, such as "it's not random, it's arbitrary". I had no clue people had an alternative definition for it. I'm even more surprised that otherwise ostensibly-educated people have no clue ab…

Can you find any recent dictionary with your definition, or modern printed example of the word used in this way?

Etymonline cites a 1640s dictionary with the present-day definition: https://www.etymonline.com/word/arbitrary

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#70

Post by School-Cotton »

KerrAvon wrote: post #2

This is all fine, but the focus on deaths is sort of missing the larger societal problem. The COVID devastation is also about long COVID, and even people who had COVID but either recovered “fully” or never displayed symptoms. None of this is over, and we are so, so fucked. edit: Which is to say: The Great Barrington Declaration was wrong directionally as well. We really needed to optimize to eliminate COVID as much a…

> None of this is over, and we are so, so fucked.

Some fraction of us are fucked, but surely not “we” as a whole. The vast majority of people I know have had Covid (many multiple times), and the vast majority are now perfectly fine.

> We really needed to optimize to eliminate COVID as much as possible

This was already impossible by Feb. 2020 when it was spreading like wildfire in China, Iran, and Italy.

> to have a hope of a return to normality.

We have already returned to normality, so reality doesn’t back up your assertion.

Post reply on HN